Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-11-2015, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,536 posts, read 37,136,097 times
Reputation: 14000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
You are living in a Pollyanna fantasy world. You would not know the truth if you saw it. You did not even read the articles you posted or you would know they disprove what you wrote.
The one claiming science isn't money driven must have been written by a high school sophomore because it contends that people think it is the "clean energy" companies that are paying for the research.

It is the oil companies and electric power companies that are paying for the global warming BS science. The entire issue is being driven to establish a system of carbon credits which will effectively stop all manufacturing for anyone who does not possess the proper carbon credits. Now tell me, who do you think are going to get all the carbon credits? The same people who monopolize everything else.
Stop blindly believing everything you are told and do some real research on your own.
Stop blindly believing everything you are told and do some real research on your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 923,472 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Stop blindly believing everything you are told and do some real research on your own.
I would recommend the same to you. The fact of the matter is, there is a carbon market. I covered this stuff a couple pages back, apparently you don't bother reading through any of it. here is my post http://www.city-data.com/forum/37974939-post167.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 06:49 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,781,338 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
You are living in a Pollyanna fantasy world. You would not know the truth if you saw it. You did not even read the articles you posted or you would know they disprove what you wrote.
The one claiming science isn't money driven must have been written by a high school sophomore because it contends that people think it is the "clean energy" companies that are paying for the research.

It is the oil companies and electric power companies that are paying for the global warming BS science. The entire issue is being driven to establish a system of carbon credits which will effectively stop all manufacturing for anyone who does not possess the proper carbon credits. Now tell me, who do you think are going to get all the carbon credits? The same people who monopolize everything else.
Stop blindly believing everything you are told and do some real research on your own.
Oh look, a conspiracy theory.
Science in action!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:13 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,288,026 times
Reputation: 5194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Oh look, a conspiracy theory.
Science in action!
Conspiracies are a common occurrence. It is what humans do to gain advantage over others. Most people over the age of 15 understand that, some live in fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:19 AM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,290,701 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Its 97% of (climate) scientists.

"Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion, 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming."
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global warming consensus


Instead of using a source like Forbes, you should post one of the 0.7% of scientific papers that reject global warming (then you would be posting a real scientific source backing your claims.)
Quote:
Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion, 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming. Then the authors invited a subset of these papers’ authors to place their own papers into the same categories that Cook and his collaborators had used. These authors overwhelmingly endorsed the statement that most of the past century’s warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
97% of a subset of 32.4%..........|
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:33 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,781,338 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Conspiracies are a common occurrence. It is what humans do to gain advantage over others. Most people over the age of 15 understand that, some live in fantasy.
Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Where you aren't
1,245 posts, read 923,472 times
Reputation: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Oh look, a conspiracy theory.
Science in action!
Climate science=conspiracy theory too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 07:41 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,781,338 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookb4youcross View Post
Climate science=conspiracy theory too!
Wrong again.

No science-believer thinks that anyone is conspiring to intentionally warm up the planet.

The only thing resembling a conspiracy on the science-believer side is that the oil companies and PR firms hired by them have an interest in spreading the same lies and confusion that science-deniers like you re-post endlessly.

You are so deluded that even though the same people did the same thing for big tobacco, you don't seem to think this is any cause to be suspicious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 08:00 AM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,290,701 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Wrong again.

No science-believer thinks that anyone is conspiring to intentionally warm up the planet.

The only thing resembling a conspiracy on the science-believer side is that the oil companies and PR firms hired by them have an interest in spreading the same lies and confusion that science-deniers like you re-post endlessly.

You are so deluded that even though the same people did the same thing for big tobacco, you don't seem to think this is any cause to be suspicious.
What's the downside?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 09:22 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,820,687 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Wrong again.

No science-believer thinks that anyone is conspiring to intentionally warm up the planet.

The only thing resembling a conspiracy on the science-believer side is that the oil companies and PR firms hired by them have an interest in spreading the same lies and confusion that science-deniers like you re-post endlessly.

You are so deluded that even though the same people did the same thing for big tobacco, you don't seem to think this is any cause to be suspicious.
Lol, emails were released disproving your claim.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top